Maybe but apart from not being what he said we're all trying hard not to patronise you.

He pretty much did"[i I don't have the numbers and the detailed knowledge that you so clearly have. I am going purely on instinct but as I said I know what I believe[/i"

For the avoidance of doubt. No im not.

Im saying the situations are different and as such there is no need to assume that the resolutions would need to be the same. Wakefield obviously could and have put together a plan where they can honour their debts and continue to trade. There is no need to assume that had Bradford followed the same plan, we wouldn’t still be in this position, especially considering that the main issue the Admin has resolved is the ownership issue, which no amount of squad cutting would have resolved.

thats ridiculous, even prior to this issue Bradfords squad was thought of as one of those at most risk of relegation, this is now a big expensive team of superstars on massive wages?

The situations are structurally different, but the principle is the same; and whilst I agree that there was no *need* to assume that Bradford could scrap their way out of the situation they once again find themselves in, there was equally no *need* to assume that Wakefield could either; yet on the face of it, one club was deemed expendable enough to take the risk of making that assumption, whilst the other one is apparently to be protected at all costs.

This could go on forever couldn't it?

Are you basing that on the quite possibly entirely fictional threat of relegation? The threat the RFL apparently made but no one can prove?

Just like Smokey, are you saying that the threat was never made and that the Wakefield Chairman was telling lies at a public forum ?

So you are saying that Bradford's squad of the last 2 seasons has been mickey poor and that none of their squad could have been replaced by a cheaper option, really ??

Of course a team that performs less well on the field of play will attract fewer spectators but, unless you are Man City or, maybe even Huddersfield, you have to be able to service the cost of said squad, which Bradford clearly couldn't.

So their choice is 2 fold, cut their cloth according to what they can afford or, gamble further with expensive contracts in the hope that it will all come good

Let's all bow to Smokey, the accountant. We are truly in awe of your knowledge and wisdom

But this is the point I am making about choosing to see a double standard. I think we all agree that the discussions Wakefield and the RFL had were far more detailed than the simple statement which is being used as a stick to beat the bulls with. I have no doubt that the RFL wouldn’t give anywhere near the unequivocal statement being used here, and if they did even come close to giving any kind of firm, never mind hard ‘threat’ of relegation it will have come with a huge amount of information. Information we aren’t privy to in either Wakefields nor Bradfords case.

It may very well be that Wakefield approached the RFL or discussed with the RFL a specific plan of how they were to go into admin and come out, the RFL they say ‘if you do it that way, you will start in C1’ that is the way Michael Carter felt was the only way of entering and exiting Admin for Wakefield, ergo Wakefield go in to Admin they start in C1. Bradford have an entirely different plan of how to go in and come out of Admin which far more acceptable, ergo Bradford go into admin doesn’t mean they start in C1. That’s not a double standard, it simply addressing a situation on its merits.

You are nearly there.
In respect of what each club could afford, both squads (despite their lowly league ranking) were over funded.
Neither club could afford what they were paying out in player contracts and both got to the edge of the proverbial cliff.
One of them jumped and the other, saw sense and came away from the edge.

Btw, what do you think each clubs spending was on player contracts, compared to the rest of SL ?

And we are just back to the naïve assumption that the only reason a club goes bust is it spends too much on players

Smokey can speak for himself. I am saying that I believe the threat was never made and that the chairman may have misunderstood the situation and conveyed that misunderstanding at a public forum.

I sincerely do not believe the chairman of Wakefield has lied at any point. But I genuinely don't believe they were told they would be relegated if they went into administration. However, if the RFL or anyone else can prove otherwise I will happily hold me hand up and apologise.

I do think that no one knows whether the two situations are the same. Without that knowledge it's impossible to say that the principle is the same.

I'll put it as simply as I can. The debt with Wakey may have been principally with HMRC. So a Wakey Admin would be because of this debt (assumption).

Not paying HMRC maybe why the RFL said if you go into admin you will be in C1. Nothing to do with administration, but to do with who the money is owed too.

The RFL have made a special provision on the site, separate to Administration about owing money to HMRC.

The Bulls have said they will work with creditors, which I ASSUME means to pay them apart from OK. So the debt to HMRC (assumption) will be paid.


So where Wakey were looking at 2 principles .
1. Administration
2. not Paying HMRC

Bradford may only be looking at 1.
1. Administration

It's the RFL's tough stance on not paying HMRC that would have lead to bigger trouble for Wakey with there admin.

This is a BIG assumption as I don't know whether either club planned to pay or not pay HMRC. But I do think that not Paying HMRC has more of an effect than not paying other creditors. AS the RFL have made special mention of this specific debt above all others.